I don't think "Your Government" refers to any particular branch of government. Instead I believe it refers to the ineptness of government in general, and, based on the picture, the failings of the government of New Orleans in particular.

The cover article itself is about the ridiculous pervasiveness of the 'Bush Hatred' phenomenon.

I don't think "Your Government" refers to any particular branch of government. Instead I believe it refers to the ineptness of government in general, and, based on the picture, the failings of the government of New Orleans in particular.

The cover article itself is about the ridiculous pervasiveness of the 'Bush Hatred' phenomenon.

Click to expand...

National Review is one of my favorite magazines! Too bad it only comes out every other week. I normally read it from cover to cover (except for a few articles)....

I really thought that the article that used the fireman analogy was very appropriate.....

I don't think "Your Government" refers to any particular branch of government. Instead I believe it refers to the ineptness of government in general, and, based on the picture, the failings of the government of New Orleans in particular.

The cover article itself is about the ridiculous pervasiveness of the 'Bush Hatred' phenomenon.

Click to expand...

I looked at it again with new eyes as you describe it and I do see what you say. If you look at the cover from the perspective of the media blames Bush but look at all those unused and under water busses that should have been.

snippet

Hurricane of Entitlements
The federal government as insurer of first resort. By Michael G. Franc

Nearly two decades ago, scholar Robert Higgs addressed a simple question of paramount importance to lawmakers as they fashion the federal response to Katrina: What explains the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government?

Higgs theorized that a "genuine crisis" such as a war or an economic depression "has been the occasion for another ratchet toward Bigger Government." Lawmakers under pressure to respond in real time inevitably choose the path of least resistance  they simply expand existing governmental programs and approaches.

Indeed, over the last decade Congress has, through a steady stream of emergency-relief measures, created what amounts to yet another entitlement program whereby the federal government acts as insurer of first resort to the victims of floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and terrorist acts.

To many, this climate of urgency somehow exempts Congress from its responsibility to make room for all the new spending and expanded authority by scrutinizing and jettisoning the least worthy activities of government.

Yet it is precisely during a crisis such as Katrina that Congress is best able to separate the government's wheat from the chaff. Wasteful and redundant programs, pork projects and misplaced priorities stand out in sharp contrast to those necessary activities that only government can do. Consider, for example, that several years ago Louisiana's elected officials secured $475,000 for a bike trail atop New Orleans' ill-fated levee. Or that between 2002 and 2004 its congressional delegation delivered over 350 pork projects valued in excess of $430 million for low-priority items such as community centers, drug-treatment facilities, after-school programs, road and trolley projects, and wastewater treatment facilities.

Is it even possible for Congress and the White House to prune the dead weight of government at moments such as this? If history is any guide, there is hope. I'll cite three examples:

In 1939, as President Franklin Roosevelt was increasing military spending to meet the twin threats of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, he instructed his budget director to accommodate this new spending by "cutting [non-military] programs to the bone." As a result, between 1939 and 1944 domestic spending fell by a remarkable 37 percent. Entire New Deal-era programs were purged. According to former Bush Budget Director Mitch Daniels, in today's dollars these cuts would be equivalent to "closing up shop at HHS, the Department of Education, HUD, and the Departments of Justice, Energy, Agriculture, Treasury, Interior and Labor combined."

In the early 1941, the Senate created a special committee, chaired by Senator Harry Truman, to investigate wasteful spending within the military. Over the next three years the committee held hundreds of hearings and identified millions of dollars in military cost overruns.

Finally, during a 1995 debate over an aid package to victims of the Northridge, Calif., earthquake and the Oklahoma City bombing, California Republican David Dreier set forth what I'll label the Dreier Doctrine for Emergency Spending. "When we want to provide emergency assistance," Dreier said, "we are only going to do it if we find offsets." For a while, the Dreier Doctrine prevailed whenever emergency-spending bills reached the House floor.

The lawmakers who champion these attempts to restrain the federal Leviathan tend to prosper politically. Roosevelt is widely revered as a gifted wartime leader who reshaped government as needed to win the war. Truman's diligence in exposing extensive fraud and price gouging so enhanced his political reputation that FDR chose him as his running mate in 1944. And Dreier's stand on behalf of offsets didn't prevent him from ascending to the chairmanship of the powerful House Rules Committee.

Will the congressional response to Katrina include outside-the-box policy innovations consistent with the principles of limited government and President Bush's "Ownership Society"? Will House and Senate leaders embrace reforms that encourage individuals to rely less on government and take more responsibility for their health care, retirement, housing, and education?

National Review was a once-great publication, ready to stick up for whites (See WFB's famous editorial about blacks and the franchise). Now, it's the "Golberg Review", eager to stick up for ISREAL, not the U.S. It totally abandoned the whites who BUILT this mofo.

Though John Derbyshire, I like. And I bet this cover story sticks it to Nagin, which is where the blame belongs, not on Bush.

Not only does National Review tell the truth in pictures, but in the written word as well.

I understand there's a liberal website dedicated to refuting what is written in National Review, much like the Media Research Center and www.timeswatch.org refutes what appears in the New York Times. Has anyone come across that website yet? If so, please direct me to it.

Not only does National Review tell the truth in pictures, but in the written word as well.

I understand there's a liberal website dedicated to refuting what is written in National Review, much like the Media Research Center and www.timeswatch.org refutes what appears in the New York Times. Has anyone come across that website yet? If so, please direct me to it.

Click to expand...

I did a quick Google search and can't find anything.... probably, like many liberal websites, radio stations etc, it was disbanded due to lack of interest....

National Review is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, that is quite a testament to them. They may not be the biggest, but they were the first publication that dared to stand up to the liberal media.... today's alternate media certainly owes them (and its founder, William F Buckley) a debt of gratitude....

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!